now I know there is no way I would vote for this man

[2shoes]

dipstick that he is

'Much of the burden would be removed with a functioning social care system'

But unfortunately, the people who work in SS are the same people who make up the society that permits 39wk old disabled babies to be aborted.

For me, the lack of SS provision for old and disabled people is merely a reflection on innate human prejudices.

"For me, the lack of SS provision for old and disabled people is merely a reflection on innate human prejudices."

Absolutely. That's what I've been trying to say (in a long winded way!) on this thread.

But surely we will all be disabled one day - so in a way, we don't care very much about anyone even ourselves. I think this is reflected in the growing trend to encourage us to accept euthanasia for the sick and elderly as an option rather than caring for people.

Old age and disability are fairly new phenomena (in a biological sense). Our ancestors probably didn't live much beyond 40yrs of age and any disabled children would've been taken by predation or abandoned for the same. Our environment has changed but our basic instincts and thought processes have not moved much for thousands of years. That's why prejudices take so long to fight

I have a child with a disability (ASD) and I applaud Cameron. It's easy to jump on the right-wing, anti-women anti-abortion bandwagon. I am pleased he supports abortion rights.

MannyMoeAndJack what an odd post. adnormal lives!!!
what is adnormal about caring for a child you love, you are correct. yonks ago dd would have probally been a still birth

the talk a bout a severe disabilty makes me go
dd has a severe disability( I am sure riven is the same) but as it was caused at birth how do you test for that??
so even with all this culling, you will still end up with loads of babies with cp. or should something be done about that?

surely if you have gone through months of carrying a baby it would be better to have that baby to hold, even if it is only for a short while. the horror or a "termination" at such a late stage must be horrendous.

2Shoes, my life is abnormal because my ds has severe ASD/SLD/ADHD, is non-verbal, is doubly incontinent, is unable to participate in everyday activities, has a reduced sense of danger, needs 1-1 supervision, etc, etc. Why is it so 'odd' to state the blindingly obvious?!

My ds has a condition that no scan or test can detect, which is no different from an NT baby being affected by a birth trauma. You just have to get over it and get on with it. This isn't the issue though - the issue is keeping the termination option open for parents who do not wish to have a severely disabled baby. I'm guessing that the actual number of women who choose to abort at 39wks is tiny - and I'm guessing that none of them choose this option lightly. And for those who wish to continue with the pregnancy, whilst knowing that the baby will die soon afterwards anyway, then that is also their right to choose. But you cannot expect that what works for one family will work for another - for example, some families are governed very strongly by religious beliefs.

we could go round in cirles disagagreeing. would rather not tbh.
I suppose people will just continue to see a disabled baby as a burden not worth the hassle.
I can understand it early in the pregnancy as I remeber how i was with ds.
but I can not ever get my head round killing a baby that is viable.
(and sorry misunderstood the "adnormal" post")

It's fine to disagree! In fact, it makes it more interesting because we get to see both sides to an issue,

I suppose the point though is that if you're carrying an NT baby there comes a point in the pregnancy where even if something happens that makes you think you don;t want/can't cope with a child it's tough and you just have to get on with it. Whereas at the moment babies with 'severe' disabilities are not given that protection. And yet (and this is the bit I disagree with) there is a very broad definition of 'severe' which seems to include anyone potentially with an IQ below 100 and apparently includes those with talipes - which I do find hard to believe.

If the laws were in place to stop families going through the stresses of having a child with say anencephaly (which they are in part) then fine of course no-one can argue with that, but when they exist to prevent people from having to deal with moderate learning difficulties (for example) then I think those babies should be afforded the same or at least similar protection as their NT counterparts. I'm not going to argue that there should be an absolute cut off of 24 weeks for moderate disabilities, but these are cases where I think a legal cut off of 'up until birth' is just wrong - and not really in anyone's favour.

Severe shouldn't be that difficult to define, - of course there will always be shades of grey and the law would need to recognise that and err on the side of liberalism but I think 'severe' needs to be considered closely.

Over the next few years presumably more genes are going to be identified which have the potential to trigger conditions - but they won't necessarily tell you whether a child will be affected for sure, or if they are to what degree. Difficult times ahead.

of an issue, even

do you not think that people kid themselves into thinking they will have the perfect child.
does it exist.
a person I know has 3 boys.
boy 1.. was a terror as a tot, ending up at A&E a lot
boy 2.. had one leg shorter than the other needed an op
boy3....... had a heart condition and needed major surgery
not a perfect child among them, but no sn
even ds who is nt has had numerous ops on his ear, no sn though.

so people test and test for what the PFB that doesn't exist.

I don't think people kid themselves into thinking they will have a perfect child. However, I do think people hope for/want a perfectly functioning child. And this is a normal want.

Many problems can be fixed quite easily, e.g. corrective lenses for even very young children, physio for structural impairments, grommits for ear problems, medicines for internal issues, etc, etc.

not ear problems though, took years to sort ds's out. bloody kid

the good news is that after about 7 grommets and 2 big ops(one involving having his ear pulled off) he can hear in stereo.

Jimjams, I wasn't knocking residential care as such - merely the way not so long ago it was common to remove a disabled baby at birth, tell the mother to forget him or her, and stick the poor child in a home.

See governmental statistics - the latest available online from 2001 show that there were 176,364 abortions, of which 119 were of gestation of 24 weeks or more. Of these 119, 6 were of 35-38 weeks (1 at 38 weeks). All bar one of these 119 abortions were due to severe disability of the foetus (the one being due to grave clinical risk to the mother).

Seewww.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/AB28_2001/AB28_2001.pdf - v interesting reading (if you're into statistics!) and puts the numbers into perspective. See table 8a for details of gestational ages over 24 weeks.

oldcrock- but the point is there's no definition of 'severe' disability.

2shoes- yes I think people do expect perfect lives and perfect children and I think many think they have a 'right' to them. But I think they misunderstand what life is about. I don't mean that in 'every life is valuable' type way. I mean that bad things happen. They happen everyday to many people. It's not fair and in the majority of cases there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. If someone thinks they can control their life and prevent bad things happening to them then they are living under an illusion.

good point riven. and what do you do when your toddler has an accodent causing severe brain damage?

'Hmm, how late can we 'terminate' then? 1 month old? 2 years? Why should it be any different whether they are 'in' the womb or out of it?'

The laws of this country would call the termination of a 1mth old or a 2yr old murder. Isn't that obvious?

But yes, there have been cases where the parents of disabled children/adults have been 'let off' the charge of murder. Not being a judge, I don't know how the law works in these cases but I would say that an element of compassion comes into it, not saying that that is right though. As always, it's a shame that that same compassion wasn't mustered before the child/adult was killed.

'the fact that termination is allowed for disabled babies and not for norm babies after 24 weeks says it all really.'

I agree but you're fighting deep-rooted human instinct here, not some fabricated 21st century lifestyle option.

'and what do you do when your toddler has an accident causing severe brain damage?'

What do you think you do? You get over it and get on with it, just the same as you do if your child experiences a birth trauma or if your child has a condition that is not detectable by pre-natal scans or tests.

'and what do you do when your toddler has an accident causing severe brain damage?'

What do you think you do? You get over it and get on with it, just the same as you do if your child experiences a birth trauma or if your child has a condition that is not detectable by pre-natal scans or tests.

in which case should it not be the same if you find out after 30 weeks.
what is the difference?

The difference is the law allows you to kill a none perfect child when in the womb.

I agree jimjams. I was just posting the statistics to show that the number of very late "abortions" was small in the context of the total (but still too many imo). An abortion surely cannot really exist at 38 weeks - it's an induction, followed by non-resuscitation.